iili^^^'iiii'^iii 


jj 


I 


ADDRESS 

BY 

ELIHU   ROOT 

lS  temporary  chairman  of  the  new  YORK 
REPUBLICAN  CONVENTION 

NEW   YORK,  FEBRUARY    15,   1916 


\EPRINTED,     WITH     CERTAIN    ELIMINATIONS, 

FOR  THE  ENLIGHTENMENT  OF  THE 

AMERICAN  PUBLIC 


G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS 

NEW   YORK    AND    LONDON 

Ube  If^ntcherbocJ^er  press 


X 


■  <i> 


V' 


ROOT'S  SPEECH 


FOREWORD 


The  Address  of  Elihu  Root  impressed  the  under- 
signed who  has  taken  the  responsibiHty  for  its 
re-issue  as  presenting  material  that  should  prove 
of  service  and  enlightenment  for  citizens  through- 
out the  coimtry. 

.  The  portions  of  the  Address  here  printed  have 
to  do  with  the  subject  of  foreign  relations.  Ameri- 
can citizens  who  are  interested  in  the  welfare  of 
the  nation  and  in  the  fulfillment  of  our  national 
obligations  will  find  in  Senator  Root's  clearly- 
thought  out  argument  material  for  guidance 
and  for  inspiration.  Legislators  and  voters  have 
been  unduly  confused  by  the  specious  talk  of 
W.  J.  Bryan,  the  political  leader  who  was  ready  to 
recommend  the  payment  of  debts,  national  and 
individual,  fifty  cents  on  the  dollar,  and  who  is 

331S03 


still  ready  to  advocate  the  discharge  of  all  our 
national  obligations  on  the  same  basis. 

It  is  well  that  our  people  should  be  placed  in  a 
position  to  combat  the  heresies  of  Bryan  and  his 
followers  with  the  thoughtful  utterances  of  a 
real  statesman  like  Senator  Root. 

'*  Peace  Under  the  Sword." 

March  lo,  191 6. 


Gentlemen  of  the  Convention  : 

We  are  entering  upon  a  contest  for  the  election  of 
a  President  and  the  control  of  government  under 
conditions  essentially  new  in  the  experience  of  our 
country.  The  forms  which  we  are  about  to  follow 
are  old  and  familiar;  but  the  grounds  for  action,  the 
demand  of  great  events  for  decision  upon  national 
conduct,  the  moral  forces  urging  to  a  solution  of/ 
vaguely  outlined  questions,  the  tremendous  conse- 
quences of  wisdom  or  folly  in  national  policy,  all 
these  are  new  to  the  great  mass  of  American  voters. 
Never  since  1864  has  an  election  been  fraught 
with  consequences  so  vital  to  national  life.  All 
the  ordinary  considerations  which  play  so  great  a 
part  in  our  presidential  campaigns  are  and  ought 
to  be  dwarfed  into  insignificance. 

For  the  first  time  in  twenty  years  we  enter  the 
field  as  the  party  of  opposition,  and  indeed  it  is  a 
much  longer  time,  for  in  1896,  in  all  respects  save 
the  tariff,  the  real  opposition  to  the  sturdy  and 
patriotic  course  of  President  Cleveland  was  to 
be  found  in  the  party  that  followed  Mr.  Bryan. 


.But  it  is  xiQ%  from  domestic  questions  that  the 
most'  difficult  pioblems  of  this  day  arise.  The 
events  of  the  last  few  years  have  taught  us  many 
lessons.  We  have  learned  that  civilization  is  but 
a  veneer  thinly  covering  the  savage  nature  of 
man;  that  conventions,  courtesies,  respect  for 
law,  regard  for  justice  and  humanity,  are  acquired 
habits,  feebly  constraining  the  elemental  forces 
of  man's  nature  developed  through  countless 
centuries  of  struggle  against  wild  beasts  and 
savage  foes.  We  have  been  forced  to  perceive 
that  a  nation  which  fulfills  the  conditions  on  which 
alone  it  can  continue  to  exist,  which  preserves  its 
independence  and  the  liberty  of  its  people  and 
makes  its  power  a  shield  for  the  rights  of  its  citi- 
zens, must  deal  with  greed  and  lust  of  conquest 
and  of  power  and  indifference  to  human  rights. 
/We  have  seen  that  neither  the  faith  of  treaties 
nor  the  law  of  nations  affords  protection  to  the 
weak  against  the  aggression  of  the  strong!  We 
have  begun  to  realize  that  America,  with  its  vast 
foreign  trade,  with  its  citizens  scattered  over 
the  whole  earth,  with  millions  of  aliens  upon  its 
soil,  with  its  constantly  increasing  participation 
in  world-wide  efforts  for  the  benefit  of  mankind, 
with  a  thousand  bonds  of  intercourse  and  intimacy 
imiting  it  to  other  nations,  is  no  longer  isolated; 
that  our  nation  can  no  longer  live  unto  itself 

4 


alone  or  stand  aloof  from  the  rest  of  mankind; 
that  we  must  play  some  part  in  the  progress  of 
civilization,  recognize  some  duties  as  correlative 
to  our  rights.  For  the  first  time  within  the 
memory  of  men  now  living,  the  international 
relations  of  the  United  States,  long  deemed  of/ 
trifling  consequence,  are  recognized  as  vital.  How 
can  this  nation,,  which  loves  peace  and  intends 
justice,  avoid  the  curse  of  militarism  and  at  the 
same  time  preserve  its  independence,  defend  its 
territory,  protect  the  lives  and  liberty  and  property 
of  its  citizens?  How  can  we  prevent  the  same 
principles  of  action,  the  same  policies  of  conduct, 
the  same  forces  of  military  power  which  are 
exhibited  in  Europe  from  laying  hold  upon  the 
vast  territory  and  practically  undefended  wealth  of 
the  new  world?  Can  we  expect  immunity?  Can 
we  command  immunity?  How  shall  we  play  our 
part  in  the  world?  Have  selfish  living  and  fac- 
tional quarreling  and  easy  prosperity  obscured 
the  spiritual  vision  of  our  coimtry?  Has  the 
patriotism  of  a  generation  never  summoned  to 
sacrifice  become  lifeless?  Is  our  nation  one,  or  a 
discordant  multitude?  Have  we  still  national 
ideals?  Will  anybody  live  for  them?  Would 
anybody  die  for  them?  Or  are  we  all  for  ease  and 
comfort  and  wealth  at  any  price?  Confronted 
by  such  questions  as  these  and  the  practical  situa- 

5 


tions  which  give  rise  to  them,  is  the  country 
satisfied  to  trust  itself  again  in  the  hands  of  the 
Democratic  party  ? 

When  a  President  and  Secretary  of  State  have 
been  lawfully  established  in  office  the  power  of 
initiative  in  foreign  affairs  rests  with  them.  The 
nation  is  in  their  hands.  Theirs  is  the  authority 
and  theirs  the  duty  to  adopt  and  act  upon  policies, 
subject  to  such  laws  as  Congress  may  enact 
within  constitutional  limits.  Parliamentary  oppo-  » 
sition  can  take  no  affirmative  step ;  can  accomplish  \ 
no  affirmative  action.  The  expression  of  public 
opinion  can  do  nothing  except  as  it  produces  an 
influence  upon  the  minds  of  those  officers  who 
have  the  lawful  power  to  conduct  our  foreign 
relations.  Their  policy  is  the  country's  policy 
because  it  is  they  who  are  authorized  to  act  for 
the  country.  While  they  are  working  out  their 
policy  all  opposition,  all  criticism,  all  condem- 
nation, are  at  the  risk  of  weakening  the  case  of 
one's  own  country  and  frustrating  the  efforts 
of  its  lawful  representatives  to  Succeed  in  what 
they  are  seeking  to  accomplish  for  the  country's 
benefit.  An  American  should  wish  the  representa- 
tives of  his  country  to  succeed  whatever  may  be 
their  party  unless  there  be  wrong-doing  against 
conscience.  However  much  he  may  doubt  the 
wisdom  of  their  course  he  should  help  them  where 

6 


he  can  and  refrain  from  placing  obstacles  in  their 
way.  But  when  the  President  and  Secretary  of 
State  have  acted,  and  seek  a  new  grant  of  power, 
they  and  the  party  which  is  responsible  for  them 
must  account  for  their  use  of  power  to  the  people 
from  whom  it  came,  and  the  people  must  pass 
judgment  upon  them,  and  then  full  and  frank 
public  discussion  becomes  the  citizen's  duty. 

The  United  States  had  rights  and  duties  in 
Mexico.  More  than  forty  thousand  of  our 
citizens  had  sought  their  fortunes  and  made  their 
homes  there.  A  thousand  millions  of  American 
capital  had  been  invested  in  that  rich  and  produc- 
tive country,  and  millions  of  income  from  these 
enterprises  were  annually  returned  to  the  United 
States  not  merely  for  the  benefit  of  the  investors, 
but  for  the  enrichment  of  our  whole  country 
and  all  its  production  and  enterprise.  But 
revolution  had  come,  and  factional  warfare  was 
rife.  Americans  had  been  murdered,  American 
property  had  been  wantonly  destroyed,  the  lives 
and  property  of  all  Americans  in  Mexico  were  in 
danger.  That  was  the  situation  when  Mr.  Wilson 
became  President  in  March,  1913.  His  duty  then 
was  plain.  It  was,  first,  to  use  his  powers  as 
President  to  secure  protection  for  the  lives  and 
property  of  Americans  in  Mexico  and  to  require 
that  the  rules  of  law  and  stipulations  of  treaties 

7 


should  be  observed  by  Mexico  towards  the  United 
States  and  its  citizens.  His  duty  was,  second,  as 
the  head  of  a  foreign  power  to  respect  the  in- 
dependence of  Mexico,  to  refrain  from  all  inter- 
ference with  her  internal  affairs,  except  as  he  was 
justified  by  the  law  of  nations  for  the  protection 
of  American  rights.  The  President  of  the  United 
States  failed  to  observe  either  of  those  duties. 
He  deliberately  abandoned  them  both  and  fol- 
lowed an  entirely  different  and  inconsistent 
purpose.  He  intervened  in  Mexico  to  aid  one 
faction  in  civil  strife  against  another.  He  under- 
took to  pull  down  Huerta  and  set  Carranza  up 
in  his  place.  Huerta  was  in  possession.  He 
claimed  to  be  the  constitutional  president  of 
Mexico.  He  certainly  was  the  de  facto  president 
of  Mexico.  Rightly  or  wrongly,  good  or  bad,  he 
was  there.  From  the  north  Carranza  and  a 
group  of  independent  chieftains  were  endeavoring 
to  pull  down  the  power  of  Huerta.  President 
Wilson  took  sides  with  them  in  pulling  down  that 
power.  In  August,  191 3,  through  Mr.  John 
Lind,  he  presented  to  Huerta  a  communication 
which  was  in  substance  a  demand  that  Huerta 
should  retire  permanently  from  the  government  of 
Mexico.  When  Huerta  refused,  the  power  of  the 
United  States  was  appHed  to  turn  him  out.  For- 
eign nations  were  induced  to  refuse  to  his  govem- 

8 


ment  the  loans  of  money  necessary  to  repair  the 
ravages  of  war  and  estabHsh  order.  Arms  and 
munitions  of  war  were  freely  furnished  to  the 
Northern  forces  and  withheld  from  Huerta. 
Finally  the  President  sent  our  army  and  navy  to 
invade  Mexico  and  capture  its  great  seaport, 
Vera  Cruz,  and  hold  it  and  throttle  Mexican 
commerce  until  Huerta  fell.  The  government 
of  the  United  States  intervened  in  Mexico  to 
control  the  internal  affairs  of  that  independent  \ 
cotmtry  and  to  enforce  the  will  of  the  American 
President  in  those  affairs  by  threat,  by  economic 
pressure,  and  by  force  of  arms.  Upon  what 
claim  of  right  did  this  intervention  proceed? 
Not  to  secure  respect  for  American  rights;  not  to 
protect  the  lives  or  property  of  our  citizens;  not 
to  assert  the  law  of  nations;  not  to  compel  observ- 
ance of  the  law  of  himianity.  On  the  contrary, 
Huerta' s  was  the  only  power  in  Mexico  to  which 
appeal  could  be  made  for  protection  of  life  or 
property.  That  was  the  only  power  which  in 
fact  did  protect  either  American  or  European  or 
Mexican.  It  was  only  within  the  territory  where  ■ 
Huerta  ruled  that  comparative  peace  and  order 
prevailed.  The  territory  over  which  the  armed 
power  of  Carranza  and  Villa  and  their  associates 
extended  was  the  theater  of  the  most  appalling 
crimes.     Bands    of    robbers    roved    the    coimtry 

9 


with  unbridled  license.  Americans  and  Mexicans 
alike  were  at  their  mercy,  and  American  men  were 
murdered  and  American  women  were  outraged 
with  impunity.  Thousands  were  reduced  to 
poverty  by  the  wanton  destruction  of  the 
industries  through  which  they  lived.  The  pay- 
ment of  blackmail  was  the  only  protection  of 
property  against  burnings  and  robbery.  No  one 
in  authority  could  or  would  give  protection  or 
redress.  It  had  become  perfectly  plain  that  the 
terms  upon  which  both  Carranza  and  Villa  held 
their  supporters  were  unrestricted  opportunity 
and  license  for  murder,  robbery,  and  lust.  Yet  the 
government  of  the  United  States  ignored,  condoned, 
the  murder  of  American  men  and  the  rape  of 
American  women  and  destruction  of  American 
property  and  insult  to  American  officers  and 
defilement  of  the  American  flag  and  joined  itself 
to  the  men  who  were  guilty  of  all  these  things 
to  pull  down  the  power  of  Huerta.  Why?  The 
President  himself  has  told  us.  It  was  because  he 
adjudged  Huerta  to  be  a  usurper;  because  he 
deemed  that  the  common  people  of  Mexico  ought 
to  have  greater  participation  in  government  and 
share  in  the  land;  and  he  believed  that  Carranza 
and  Villa  would  give  them  these  things.  We 
must  all  sympathize  with  these  sentiments,  but 
there  is  nothing  more  dangerous  than  misplaced 

10 


sentiment.  Of  all  men  in  this  world,  the  man 
who  had  vested  in  him  the  executive  power  of  the 
United  States  was  least  at  liberty  to  sit  in  judg- 
ment of  his  own  motion  upon  the  title  of  a  claimant 
to  the  Mexican  presidency  or  to  reform  the  land 
laws  of  Mexico. 

The  results  of  this  interference  were  most  unfor- 
tunate. If  our  government  had  sent  an  armed 
force  into  Mexico  to  protect  American  life  and 
honor  we  might  have  been  opposed  but  we  should 
have  been  understood  and  respected  by  the  people 
of  Mexico,  because  they  would  have  realized 
that  we  were  acting  within  our  international  right 
and  performing  a  nation's  duty  for  the  protection 
of  its  own  people;  but  when  the  President  sent  an 
armed  force  into  Mexico  to  determine  the  Mexican 
presidential  succession  he  created  resentment 
and  distrust  of  motives  among  all  classes  and  sec- 
tions of  the  Mexican  people.  When  our  army 
landed  at  Vera  Cruz,  Carranza  himself,  who  was 
to  be  the  chief  beneficiary  of  the  act,  publicly 
protested  against  it.  So  strong  was  the  resent- 
ment that  he  could  not  have  kept  his  followers 
otherwise.  When  Huerta  had  fallen  the  new 
government  which  for  the  day  had  succeeded  to 
his  place  peremptorily  demanded  the  withdrawal 
of  the  American  troops.  The  universal  sentiment 
of  Mexicans  required  that  peremptory  demand, 

II 


and  the  troops  were  withdrawn.  Still  worse  than , 
that,  the  taking  of  Vera  Cruz  destroyed  confidence 
in  the  sincerity  of  the  American  government  in 
Mexico,  because  every  intelligent  man  in  Mexico 
believed  that  the  avowed  reason  for  the  act 
was  not  the  real  reason.  The  avowed  purpose  ^ 
was  to  compel  a  salute  to  the  American  flag.  I  , 
will  state  the  circumstances:  On  the  ninth  of 
April,  1914,  a  boat's  crew  from  the  Dolphin  landed 
at  a  wharf  in  Tampico  to  take  off  supplies.  The 
use  of  that  wharf  had  been  prohibited,  and 
the  Mexican  officer  in  charge  of  the  wharf  put  the 
crew  under  arrest,  but  a  higher  officer  ordered 
him  to  hold  the  boat's  crew  at  the  wharf  and 
await  instructions.  Within  an  hour  and  a  half 
the  crew  was  set  free.  No  injury  or  indignity 
was  suffered  except  the  fact  of  the  arrest.  Im- 
mediate amends  were  made.  The  Mexican 
officer  in  command  at  Tampico  apologized; 
General  Huerta's  government  apologized;  the 
officer  who  made  the  arrest  was  himself  arrested 
and  his  punishment  promised.  The  admiral  in 
command  of  our  fleet  at  Tampico  demanded 
more  public  amends  through  a  salute  to  our 
flag,  but  there  ensued  a  discussion  as  to  the  facts 
and  as  to  the  character  of  the  salute  which 
the  circumstances  demanded,  the  number  of 
guns,  and  how,  if  at   all,  the  salute  was  to  be 

12 


returned.  While  that  discussion  was  pending  and 
avowedly  because  of  that  incident  the  American 
government  presented  a  twenty-four-hour  ulti- 
matum and  landed  an  armed  force  and  captured 
the  City  of  Vera  Cruz.  Three  hundred  Mexicans 
were  reported  killed;  seventeen  United  States 
Marines  were  killed  and  many  were  wounded. 
At  that  very  time  Mr.  Bryan,  with  the  President's  A 
approval,  was  signing  treaties  with  half  the  world  / 
agreeing  that  if  any  controversy  should  arise  it 
should  be  submitted  to  a  joint  commission  and 
no  action  should  be  taken  until  after  a  full  year 
had  elapsed.  This  controversy  arose  on  the  ninth 
of  April  and  on  the  twenty-first  of  the  same 
month  Vera  Cruz  was  taken.  Several  times  the 
troops  of  Carranza  and  Villa  had  arrested  and 
imprisoned  American  consular  officers  and  torn 
down  the  American  flags  from  the  consulates  and 
trampled  them  in  the  mire,  with  indescribable 
indignities.  The  proofs  were  in  our  hands  and 
no  attention  was  paid  to  them.  Many  times 
soldiers  of  the  United  States,  in  uniform,  on  duty, 
had  been  shot  and  killed  or  wounded  across  the 
border  by  soldiers  of  Carranza  and  Villa.  More 
than  fifty  of  them  have  been  killed  in  this  way  and 
no  attention  has  been  paid  to  it.  The  demand 
of  a  salute  to  the  flag  was  never  heard  of  again 
after  Vera  Cruz  was  captured.     There  is  not  an 

13 


intelligent  man  in  Mexico  who  believes  that  the 
dispute  about  the  salute  was  the  real  reason  for 
the  capture  of  Vera  Cruz.  Is  there  one  here  who 
doubts  that  the  alleged  cause  was  but  a  pretext 
and  that  the  real  cause  was  the  purpose  to  turn 
Huerta  out  of  office?  The  people  of  Mexico,  who 
saw  their  unoffending  city  captured  by  force  of 
arms,  three  hundred  of  its  people  slain,  their  soil 
violated,  a  foreign  flag  floating  over  their  great- 
seaport,  upon  what  they  felt  to  be  a  false  pretense, 
were  misled  into  imputing  a  more  sinister  purpose 
still — to  secure  control  of  Mexico  for  the  United 
States ;  and  they  believed  that  when  the  American 
troops  departed,  that  purpose  was  abandoned 
through  fear.  With  the  occupation  of  Vera  Cruz 
the  moral  power  of  the  United  States  in  Mexico 
ended.  We  were  then  and  we  are  now  hated  for 
what  we  did  to  Mexico,  and  we  were  then  and  we 
are  now  despised  for  our  feeble  and  irresolute 
failure  to  protect  the  lives  and  rights  of  our 
citizens.  No  flag  is  so  dishonored  and  no  citizen- 
ship so  little  worth  the  claiming  in  Mexico  as 
ours.     And  that  is  why  we  have  failed  in  Mexico. 

Incredible  as  it  seems,  Huerta  had  been  turned 
out  by  the  assistance  of  the  American  govern- 
ment without  any  guaranties  from  the  men  who 
were  to  be  set  up  in  his  place,  and  so  the  murdering 
and  burning  and  ravishing  have  gone  on  to  this 

14 


day.  After  Huerta  had  fallen  and  the  Vera 
Cruz  expedition  had  been  withdrawn,  President 
Wilson  announced  that  no  one  was  entitled  to 
interfere  in  the  affairs  of  Mexico ;  that  she  was 
entitled  to  settle  them  herself.  IJe  disclaims  all 
responsibility  for  what  happens  in  Mexico  and. 
contents  himself  with  a  policy  of  Watchful  Wait-/ 
ing.  But  who  can  interfere  in  a  quarrel  and  help 
some  contestants  and  destroy  others  and  then 
absolve  himself  from  responsibility  for  the  results? 
It  is  not  by  force  of  circumstances  over  which  we 
had  no  control,  but  largely  because  the  American 
Administration  intervened  by  force  to  control  the 
internal  affairs  of  that  country  instead  of  asserting 
and  maintaining  American  rights  that  we  have 
been  brought  to  our  present  pass  of  confusion 
and  humiliation  over  Mexico. 

And  for  the  death  and  outrage,  the  suffering  and 
ruin  of  our  own  brethren,  the  hatred  and  contempt 
for  our  country,  and  the  dishonor  of  our  name 
in  that  land,  the  Administration  at  Washington 
shares  responsibility  with  the  inhuman  brutes 
with  whom  it  made  common  cause. 

When  we  turn  to  the  Administration's  conduct 
of  foreign  affairs  incident  to  the  great  war  in 
Europe  we  cannot  fail  to  perceive  that  there  is 
much  dissatisfaction  among  Americans.  Some  are 
dissatisfied  for  specific  reasons,  some  with  a  vague 

15 


impression  that  our  diplomacy  has  been  inade- 
quate. Dissatisfaction  is  not  in  itself  ground  for 
condemnation.  The  best  work  of  the  diplomatist 
often  fails  to  receive  public  approval  at  the  time 
and  must  look  to  a  calm  review  in  the  dispassion- 
ate future  for  recognition  of  its  merit.  The 
situation  created  by  the  war  has  been  difficult 
and  trying.  Much  of  the  correspondence  of  the 
State  Department,  especially  since  Mr.  Lansing 
took  charge,  has  been  characterized  by  accurate 
learning  and  skillful  statement  of  specific  Ameri- 
can rights.  Everyone  in  the  performance  of  new 
and  unprecedented  duties  is  entitled  to  generous 
allowance  for  unavoidable  shortcomings  and 
errors.  No  one  should  be  held  to  the  accom- 
plishment of  the  impossible.  The  question 
whether  dissatisfaction  is  just  or  unjust  is  to  be 
determined  upon  an  examination  of  the  great 
lines  of  policy  which  have  been  followed  and  upon 
considering  whether  the  emergencies  of  the  time 
have  been  met  with  foresight,  wisdom,  and  decisive 
courage.  If  these  are  lacking  as  guides,  all  the 
learning  of  the  institutes  and  the  highest  skill  in 
correspondence  are  of  little  avail. 

A  study  of  the  Administration's  policy  towards 
Europe  since  July,  19 14,  reveals  three  fundamental 
errors.  First,  the  lack  of  foresight  to  make 
timely  provision  for  backing  up  American  diplo- 

16 


macy  by  actual  or  assured  military  and  naval 
force.  Second,  the  forfeiture  of  the  world^s 
respect  for  our  assertion  of  rights  by  pursuing? 
the  policy  of  making  threats  and  failing  to  make 
them  good.  Third,  a  loss  of  the  moral  forces 
of  the  civilized  world  through  failure  to  truly 
interpret  to  the  world  the  spirit  of  the  American 
democracy  in  its  attitude  towards  the  terrible 
events  which  accompanied  the  early  stages  of  the 
war. 

First,  as  to  power. 

When  the  war  in  Europe  began,  free,  peaceable 
little  Switzerland  instantly  mobilized  upon  her 
frontier  a  great  army  of  trained  citizen  soldiers. 
Stui'dy  Httle  Holland  did  the  same,  and,  standing 
within  the  very  sound  of  the  gims,  both  have  kept 
their  territory  and  their  independence  inviolate. 
Nobody  has  run  over  them  because  they  have 
made  it  apparent  that  the  cost  would  be  too  great. 

Great,  peaceable  America  was  farther  removed 
from  the  conflict,  but  her  trade  and  her  citizens 
traveled  on  every  sea.  Ordinary  knowledge  of 
European  affairs  made  it  plain  that  the  war  was 
begun  not  by  accident  but  with  purpose  which 
would  not  soon  be  relinquished.  Ordinary  knowl- 1 
edge  of  military  events  made  it  plain  from  the 
moment  when  the  tide  of  German  invasion  turned 
from  the  Battle  of  the  Marne  that  the  conflict 

17 


was  certain  to  be  long  and  desperate.  Ordinary- 
knowledge  of  history — of  our  own  history  during 
the  Napoleonic  Wars — made  it  plain  that  in  that 
conflict  neutral  rights  would  be  worthless  unless 
powerfully  maintained.  All  the  world  had  fair 
notice  that,  as  against  the  desperate  belligerent 
resolve  to  conquer,  the  law  of  nations  and  the 
law  of  humanity  interposed  no  effective  barriers 
for  the  protection  of  neutral  rights.  Ordinary 
practical  sense  in  the  conduct  of  affairs  demanded 
that  such  steps  should  be  taken  that  behind  the 
peaceable  assertion  of  our  country's  rights,  its 
independence  and  its  honor,  should  stand  power, 
manifest  and  available,  warning  the  whole  world 
that  it  would  cost  too  much  to  press  aggression 
too  far.  The  Democratic  government  at  Wash-\ 
ington  did  not  see  it.  Others  saw  it  and  their 
opinions  found  voice.  Mr.  Gardner  urged  it; 
Mr.  Lodge  urged  it;  Mr.  Stimson  urged  it;  Mr. 
Roosevelt  urged  it ;  but  their  argument  and  urgency 
were  ascribed  to  political  motives;  and  the  Presi- 
dent described  them  with  a  sneer  as  being  nervous 
and  excited. 

But  the  warning  voices  would  not  be  stilled. 
The  opinion  that  we  ought  no  longer  to  remain 
defenseless  became  public  opinion.  Its  expres- 
sion grew  more  general  and  insistent,  and  finally 
the   President,  not   leading,    but  following,   has 

i8 


shifted  his  ground,  has  reversed  his  position,  and 
asks  the  country  to  prepare  against  war.  God 
grant  that  he  be  not  too  late !  But  the  Democratic 
party  has  not  shifted  its  ground.  A  large  part 
of  its  members  in  Congress  are  endeavoring  now] 
to  sidetrack  the  movement  for  national  prepared-/ 
ness;  to  muddle  it  by  amendment  and  turn  it  into 
channels  which  will  produce  the  least  possible 
result  in  the  increase  of  national  power  of  defense. 
What  sense  of  effectiveness  in  this  effort  can  we 
gather  from  the  presence  of  Joseph  us  Daniels 
at  the  most  critical  post  of  all — the  head  of 
the  Navy  Department;  when  we  see  that  where! 
preparation  has  been  possible  it  has  not  been  made  / 
when  We  see  that  construction  of  warships  already 
authorized  has  not  been  pressed,  and  in  some 
cases  after  long  delay  has  not  even  been  begun. 
If  an  increase  of  our  country's  power  to  defend 
itself  against  aggression  is  authorized  by  the  pres- 
ent Congress  it  must  be  largely  through  Repub- 
lican votes,  because  the  representatives  of  the 
Republican  party  in  Washington  stand  for  the 
country  no  matter  who  is  president;  and  all 
the  traditions  and  convictions  of  that  party  are 
for  national  power  and  duty  and  honor. 

As  to  the  policy  of  threatening  words  without 
deeds. 

19 


When  Germany  gave  notice  of  her  purpose  to 
sink  merchant  vessels  on  the  high  seas  without 
safeguarding  the  lives  of  innocent  passengers,  our 
Government  replied  on  the  tenth  of  February, 
one  year  ago,  in  the  following  words: 

''The  Government  of  the  United  States  .  .  . 
feels  it  to  be  its  duty  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
Imperial  German  Government,  with  sincere  respect 
and  the  most  friendly  sentiments  but  very  candidly 
and  earnestly,  to  the  very  serious  possibilities  of  the 
course  of  action  apparently  contemplated  under 
that  proclamation. 

''The  Government  of  the  United  States  views 
those  possibilities  with  such  grave  concern  that  it 
feels  it  to  be  its  privilege,  and  indeed  its  duty  in  the 
circumstances,  to  request  the  Imperial  German 
Government  to  consider  before  action  is  taken  the 
critical  situation  in  respect  of  the  relations  between 
this  country  and  Germany  which  might  arise 
were  the  German  naval  forces,  in  carrying  out 
the  policy  foreshadowed  in  the  Admiralty's  pro- 
clamation, to  destroy  any  merchant  vessel  of  the 
United  States  or  cause  the  death  of  American 
citizens. 

"...  If  such  a  deplorable  situation  should 
arise,  the  Imperial  German  Government  can 
readily  appreciate  that  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  would  be  constrained  to  hold  the 

20 


Imperial  German  Government  to  a  strict  account- 
ability for  such  acts  of  their  naval  authorities  anc] 
to  take  any  steps  it  might  be  necessary  to  take  to 
safeguard  American  lives  and  property  and  to 
secure  to  American  citizens  the  full  enjoyment 
of  their  acknowledged  rights  on  the  high  seas." 

By  all  the  usages  and  traditions  of  diplomatic 
intercourse  those  words  meant  action.  They 
informed  Germany  in  unmistakable  terms  that  in 
attacking  and  sinking  vessels  of  the  United  States 
and  in  destroying  the  lives  of  American  citizens 
lawfully  traveling  upon  merchant  vessels  of  other 
coimtries,  she  would  act  at  her  peril.  They  pledged 
the  power  and  courage  of  America,  with  her 
hundred  million  people  and  her  vast  wealth,  to 
the  protection  of  her  citizens,  as  during  all  her 
history  through  the  days  of  her  youth  and  weak- 
ness she  had  always  protected  them. 

On  the  28th  of  March,  the  passenger  steamer 
Falaha  was  torpedoed  by  a  German  submarine, 
and  an  American  citizen  was  killed,  but  nothing 
was  done.  On  the  28th  of  April,  the  American 
vessel  Gushing  was  attacked  and  crippled  by  a 
German  aeroplane.  On  the  first  of  May,  the 
American  vessel  Gulfiight  was  torpedoed  and 
sunk  by  a  German  submarine,  and  two  or  more 
Americans  were  killed,  yet  nothing  was  done. 
On  the  7th  of  May,  the  Lusitania  was  torpedoed 


and  sunk  by  a  German  submarine,  and  more  than 
one  hundred  Americans  and  eleven  hundred 
other  non-combatants  were  drowned.  The  very 
thing  which  our  government  had  warned  Germany 
she  must  not  do,  Germany  did  of  set  purpose 
and  in  the  most  contemptuous  and  shocking  way. 
Then,  when  all  America  was  stirred  to  the  depths, 
our  government  addressed  another  note  to  Ger- 
many. It  repeated  its  assertion  of  American 
rights,  and  renewed  its  bold  declaration  of 
purpose.  It  declared  again  that  the  American 
Government  "must  hold  the  Imperial  German 
Government  to  a  strict  accountability  for  any 
infringement  of  those  rights,  intentional  or  inci- 
dental,"  and  it  declared  that  it  would  not  "omit 
any  word  or  any  act  necessary  to  the  performance 
of  its  sacred  duty  of  maintaining  the  rights  of 
the  United  States  and  its  citizens  and  of  safe- 
guarding their  free  exercise  and  enjoyment." 

Still  nothing  was  done,  and  a  long  and  technical 
correspondence  ensued;  haggling  over  petty  ques- 
tions of  detail,  every  American  note  growing  less 
and  less  strong  and  peremptory,  until  the  Arabic 
was  torpedoed  and  sunk,  and  more  American 
lives  were  destroyed,  and  still  nothing  was  done, 
and  the  correspondence  continued  until  the 
Allied  defense  against  German  submarine  warfare 
made  it  unprofitable  and  led  to  its  abandonment, 

22 


and  the  correspondence  is  apparently  approaching 
its  end  without  securing  even  that  partial  protec- 
tion for  the  future  which  might  be  found  in  an 
admission  that  the  destruction  of  the  Lusitania 
was  forbidden  by  law.  The  later  correspondence 
has  been  conducted  by  our  State  Department 
with  dignity,  but  it  has  been  futile.  An  admission 
of  liability  for  damages  has  been  secured,  but  the 
time  for  real  protection  to  American  rights  has 
long  since  passed.  Our  government  undertook  one 
year  ago  to  prevent  the  destruction  of  American 
life  by  submarine  attack,  and  now  that  the 
attempt  has  failed  and  our  citizens  are  long 
since  dead  and  the  system  of  attack  has  fallen  of 
its  own  weight,  there  is  small  advantage  in  dis- 
cussing whether  we  shall  or  shall  not  have  an 
admission  that  it  was  unlawful  to  kill  them. 

The  brave  words  with  which  we  began  the 
controversy  had  produced  no  effect,  because 
they  were  read  in  the  light  of  two  extraordinary 
events.  One  was  the  report  of  the  Austrian 
Ambassador,  Mr.  Dumba,  to  his  government,  that 
when  the  American  note  of  February  loth  was 
received,  he  asked  the  Secretary  of  State,  Mr. 
Bryan,  whether  it  meant  business,  and  received 
an  answer  which  satisfied  him  that  it  did  not, 
but  was  intended  for  effect  at  home  in  America. 

The  other  event  was  the  strange  and  unfortunate 
23 


declaration  of  the  President  in  a  public  speech  in 
Philadelphia  the  fourth  day  after  the  sinking  of 
the  Lusitania  that  *'a  man  may  be  too  proud  to 
fight."  Whatever  the  Austrian  Ambassador  was 
in  fact  told  by  the  Secretary  of  State,  the  impres- 
sion which  he  reported  was  supported  by  the 
events  which  followed.  Whatever  the  President 
did  mean,  his  declaration,  made  in  public  at  that 
solemn  time,  amid  the  horror  and  mourning  of 
all  our  people  over  the  murder  of  their  brethren, 
was  accepted  the  world  over  as  presenting  the 
attitude  of  the  American  Government  towards 
the  protection  of  the  life  and  liberty  of  American 
citizens  in  the  exercise  of  their  just  rights,  and 
throughout  the  world  the  phrase  "too  proud  to 
fight"  became  a  byword  of  derision  and  contempt 
for  the  Government  of  the  United  States.  Later, 
in  another  theater  of  war — the  Mediterranean — 
Austria,  and  perhaps  Turkey  also,  resumed  the 
practice.  The  Ancona  ana  then  the  Persia 
were  destroyed,  and  more  Americans  were  killed. 
Why  should  they  not  resume  the  practice?  They 
had  learned  to  believe  that,  no  matter  how  shocked 
the  American  Government  might  be,  its  resolu- 
tion would  expend  itself  in  words.  They  had 
learned  to  believe  that  it  was  safe  to  kill  Americans, 
— and  the  world  believed  with  them.  Measured 
and  restrained  expression,  backed  to  the  full  by 

24 


serious  purpose,  is  strong  and  respected.  Extreme 
and  belligerent  expression,  unsupported  by  resolu- 
tion, is  weak  and  without  effect.  No  man  shoula 
draw  a  pistol  who  dares  not  shoot.  The  govern- 
ment that  shakes  its  fist  first  and  its  finger  after- 
wards falls  into  contempt.  Our  diplomacy  has 
lost  its  authority  and  influence  because  we  have 
been  brave  in  words  and  irresolute  in  action. 
Men  may  say  that  the  words  of  our  diplomatic 
notes  were  justified;  men  may  say  that  our  in- 
action was  justified ;  but  no  man  can  say  that  both 
our  words  and  our  inaction  were  wise  and  cred- 
itable. 

I  have  said  that  this  government  lost  the  moral 
forces  of  the  world  by  not  truly  interpreting  the 
spirit  of  the  American  democracy. 

The  American  democracy  stands  for  something 
more  than  beef  and  cotton  and  grain  and  manu- 
factures; stands  for  something  that  cannot  be 
measured  by  rates  of  exchange,  and  does  not  rise 
or  fall  with  the  balance  of  trade.  The  American 
people  achieved  liberty  and  schooled  themselves 
to  the  service  of  justice  before  they  acquired 
wealth,  and  they  value  their  country's  liberty  and 
justice  above  all  their  pride  of  possessions.  Be- 
neath their  comfortable  optimism  and  apparent 
indifference    they    have    a    conception    of    their 

25 


great  republic  as  brave  and  strong  and  noble 
to  hand  down  to  their  children  the  blessings  of 
freedom  and  just  and  equal  laws.  They  have 
embodied  their  principles  of  government  in  fixed 
rules  of  right  conduct  which  they  jealously  pre- 
serve, and,  with  the  instinct  of  individual  freedom, 
they  stand  for  a  government  of  laws  and  not  of 
men.  They  deem  that  the  moral  laws  which 
formulate  the  duties  of  men  towards  each  other 
are  binding  upon  nations  equally  with  individuals. 
Informed  by  their  own  experience,  confirmed  by 
their  observation  of  international  life,  they  have 
come  to  see  that  the  independence  of  nations,  the 
liberty  of  their  peoples,  justice  and  humanity^ 
cannot  be  maintained  upon  the  good  nature,  the 
kindly  feeling,  of  the  strong  towards  the  weak; 
that  real  independence,  real  liberty,  cannot  rest 
upon  sufferance;  that  peace  and  liberty  can  be 
preserved  only  by  the  authority  and  observance 
of  rules  of  national  conduct  founded  upon  the 
principles  of  justice  and  humanity;  only  by  the 
establishment  of  law  among  nations,  responsive 
to  the  enlightened  public  opinion  of  mankind. 
To  them  liberty  means  not  liberty  for  themselves 
alone,  but  for  all  who  are  oppressed.  Justice 
means  not  justice  for  themselves  alone,  but  a 
shield  for  all  who  are  weak  against  the  aggression 
of  the  strong.     When  their  deeper  natures  are 

26 


stirred  they  have  a  spiritual  vision  in  which  the 
spread  and  perfection  of  free  self-government  shall 
rescue  the  humble,  who  toil  and  endure,  from  the 
hideous  wrongs  inflicted  upon  them  by  ambition 
and  lust  for  power,  and  they  cherish  in  their 
heart  of  hearts  an  ideal  of  their  country  loyal  to 
the  mission  of  liberty  for  the  lifting  up  of  the  op- 
pressed and  bringing  in  the  rule  of  righteousness 
and  peace. 

To  this  people,  the  invasion  of  Belgium  brought 
a  shock  of  amazement  and  horror.  The  people  of 
Belgium  were  peaceable,  industrious,  law-abiding, 
self-governing,  and  free.  They  had  no  quarrel 
with  anyone  on  earth.  They  were  attacked  by 
overwhelming  military  power ;  their  country  was  de- 
vastated by  fire  and  sword ;  they  were  slain  by  tens 
of  thousands;  their  independence  was  destroyed 
and  their  liberty  was  subjected  to  the  rule  of  an 
invader,  for  no  other  cause  than  that  they  defended 
their  admitted  rights.  There  was  no  question  of 
fact;  there  was  no  question  of  law;  there  was  not 
a  plausible  pretense  of  any  other  cause.  The 
admitted  rights  of  Belgium  stood  in  the  way  of 
a  mightier  nation's  purpose;  and  Belgium  was 
crushed.  When  the  true  nature  of  these  events 
was  realized,  the  people  of  the  United  States  did 
not  hesitate  in  their  feeling  or  in  their  judgment. 
Deepest   sympathy   with   downtrodden   Belgium 

27 


and  stem  condemnation  of  the  invader  were 
practically  universal.  Wherever  there  was  respect 
for  law,  it  revolted  against  the  wrong  done  to 
Belgium.  Wherever  there  was  true  passion  for 
liberty,  it  blazed  out  for  Belgium.  Wherever 
there  was  humanity,  it  mourned  for  Belgium. 
As  the  realization  of  the  truth  spread,  it  carried 
a  vague  feeHng  that  not  merely  sentiment  but 
loyalty  to  the  eternal  principles  of  right  was  in- 
volved in  the  attitude  of  the  American  people. 
And  it  was  so,  for  if  the  nations  were  to  be  in- 
different to  this  first  great  concrete  case  for  a 
century  of  military  power  trampling  under  foot 
at  will  the  independence,  the  liberty  and  the  life 
of  a  peaceful  and  unoffending  people  in  repudia- 
tion of  the  faith  of  treaties  and  the  law  of  nations 
and  of  morality  and  of  humanity — if  the  public 
opinion  of  the  world  was  to  remain  silent  upon 
that,  neutral  upon  that,  then  all  talk  about  peace 
and  justice  and  international  law  and  the  rights 
of  man,  the  progress  of  humanity  and  the  spread 
of  liberty  is  idle  patter — mere  weak  sentimentality ; 
then  opinion  is  powerless  and  brute  force  rules 
and  will  rule  the  world.  If  no  difference  is  recog- 
nized between  right  and  wrong,  then  there  are  no 
moral  standards.  There  come  times  in  the  lives 
of  nations  as  of  men  when  to  treat  wrong  as 
if  it  were  right  is  treason  to  the  right. 

28 


The  American  people  were  entitled  not  merely  to 
feel  but  to  speak  concerning  the  wrong  done  to 
Belgium.  It  was  not  like  interference  in  the 
internal  affairs  of  Mexico  or  any  other  nation, 
for  this  was  an  international  wrong.  The  law 
protecting  Belgium  which  was  violated  was  our 
law  and  the  law  of  every  other  civilized  country. 
For  generations  we  had  been  urging  on  and  helping 
in  its  development  and  establishment.  We  had 
spent  our  efforts  and  our  money  to  that  end. 
In  legislative  resolution  and  executive  declaration 
and  diplomatic  correspondence  and  special  treaties 
and  international  conferences  and  conventions  we 
had  played  our  part  in  conjunction  with  other 
civilized  countries  in  making  that  law.  We  had 
bound  ourselves  by  it ;  we  had  regulated  our  conduct 
by  it ;  and  we  were  entitled  to  have  other  nations 
observe  it.  That  law  was  the  protection  of  our 
peace  and  security.  It  was  our  safeguard  against 
the  necessity  of  maintaining  great  armaments 
and  wasting  our  substance  in  continual  readiness 
for  war.  Our  interest  in  having  it  maintained  as 
the  law  of  nations  was  a  substantial,  valuable, 
permanent  interest,  just  as  real  as  your  interest 
and  mine  in  having  maintained  and  enforced 
the  laws  against  assault  and  robbery  and  arson 
which  protect  our  personal  safety  and  property. 
Moreover,  that  law  was  written  into  a  solemn 

29 


and  formal  convention,  signed  and  ratified  by- 
Germany  and  Belgium  and  France  and  the  United 
States  in  which  those  other  countries  agreed  with 
us  that  the  law  should  be  observed.  When 
Belgium  was  invaded  that  agreement  was  binding 
not  only  morally  but  strictly  and  technically, 
because  there  was  then  no  nation  a  party  to  the 
war  which  was  not  also  a  party  to  the  convention. 
The  invasion  of  Belgium  was  a  breach  of  contract 
with  us  for  the  maintenance  of  a  law  of  nations 
which  was  the  protection  of  our  peace,  and  the 
interest  which  sustained  the  contract  justified  an 
objection  to  its  breach.  There  was  no  question 
here  of  interfering  in  the  quarrels  of  Europe. 
We  had  a  right  to  be  neutral  and  we  were  neutral 
as  to  the  quarrel  between  Germany  and  France, 
but  when  as  an  incident  to  the  prosecution  of  that 
quarrel  Germany  broke  the  law  which  we  were 
entitled  to  have  preserved,  and  which  she  had 
agreed  with  us  to  preserve,  we  were  entitled  to  be 
heard  in  the  assertion  of  our  own  national  right. 
With  the  right  to  speak  came  responsibility, 
and  with  responsibility  came  duty — duty  of 
government  towards  all  the  peaceful  men  and 
women  in  America  not  to  acquiesce  in  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  law  which  protected  them,  for  if  the 
world  assents  to  this  great  and  signal  violation 
of  the  law  of  nations,  then  the  law  of  nations  no 

30 


longer  exists  and  we  have  no  protection  save  in 
subserviency  or  in  force.  And  with  the  right  to 
speak  there  came  to  this,  the  greatest  of  neutral 
nations,  the  greatest  of  free  democracies,  another 
duty  to  the  cause  of  liberty  and  justice  for  which 
America  stands:  duty  to  the  ideals  of  America's 
nobler  nature;  duty  to  the  honor  of  her  past  and 
the  hopes  of  her  future;  for  this  law  was  a  bulwark 
of  peace  and  justice  to  the  world ;  it  was  a  barrier 
to  the  spread  of  war;  it  was  a  safeguard  to  the 
independence  and  liberty  of  all  small,  weak  states. 
It  marks  the  progress  of  civilization.  If  the  world 
consents  to  its  destruction  the  world  turns  back- 
wards towards  savagery,  and  America's  assent 
would  be  America's  abandoment  of  the  mission 
of  democracy. 

Yet  the  American  Government  acquiesced  in 
the  treatment  of  Belgium  and  the  destruction  of 
the  law  of  nations.  Without  one  word  of  objection 
or  dissent  to  the  repudiation  of  law  or  the  breach 
of  our  treaty  or  the  violation  of  justice  and  hu- 
manity in  the  treatment  of  Belgium,  our  govern- 
ment enjoined  upon  the  people  of  the  United 
States  an  undiscriminating  and  all-embracing 
neutrality,  and  the  President  admonished  the 
people  that  they  must  be  neutral  in  all  respects  in 
act  and  word  and  thought  and  sentiment.  We 
were  to  be  not  merely  neutral  as  to  the  quarrels  of 

31 


Europe,  but  neutral  as  to  the  treatment  of  Belgium ; 
neutral  between  right  and  wrong ;  neutral  between 
justice  and  injustice;  neutral  between  humanity 
and  cruelty;  neutral  between  liberty  and  oppres- 
sion. Our  government  did  more  than  acquiesce, 
for  in  the  first  Lusitania  note,  with  the  unspeakable 
horrors  of  the  conquest  of  Belgium  still  fresh  in 
our  minds,  on  the  very  day  after  the  report  of  the 
Bryce  Commission  on  Belgian  Atrocities,  it  wrote 
these  words  to  the  Government  of  Germany : 

**  Recalling  the  humane  and  enlightened 
attitude  hitherto  assumed  by  the  Imperial 
German  Government  in  matters  of  inter- 
national right,  and  particularly  with  re- 
gard to  the  freedom  of  the  seas,  having 
learned  to  recognize  the  German  views 
and  the  German  influence  in  the  field  of 
international  obligation  as  always  engaged 
upon  the  side  of  justice  and  humanity," 
etc.,  etc. 

And  so  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
appeared  as  approving  the  treatment  of  Belgium. 
It  misrepresented  the  people  of  the  United  States 
in  that  acquiescence  and  apparent  approval.  It 
was  not  necessary  that  the  United  States  should 
go  to  war  in  defense  of  the  violated  law.    A  single 

32 


official  expression  by  the  Government  of  the 
United  States,  a  single  sentence  denying  assent 
and  recording  disapproval  of  what  Germany  did  in 
Belgium,  would  have  given  to  the  people  of  America 
that  leadership  to  which  they  were  entitled  in  their 
earnest  groping  for  the  light.  It  would  have 
ranged  behind  American  leadership  the  conscience 
and  morality  of  the  neutral  world.  It  would 
have  brought  to  American  diplomacy  the  respect 
and  strength  of  loyalty  to  a  great  cause.  But  it 
was  not  to  be.  The  American  Government  failed 
to  rise  to  the  demands  of  the  great  occasion. 
Gone  were  the  old  love  of  justice ;  the  old  passion 
for  liberty;  the  old  sympathy  with  the  oppressed; 
the  old  ideals  of  an  America  helping  the  world 
towards  a  better  future;  and  there  remained  in  the 
eyes  of  mankind  only  solicitude  for  trade  and 
profit  and  prosperity  and  wealth. 

The  American  Government  could  not  really  have 
approved  the  treatment  of  Belgium,  but  tmder  a 
mistaken  policy  it  shrank  from  speaking  the  truth. 
That  vital  error  has  carried  into  every  effort  of 
our  diplomacy  the  weakness  of  a  false  position. 
Every  note  of  remonstrance  against  interference 
with  trade,  or  even  against  the  destruction  of  life, 
has  been  projected  against  the  background  of  an 
abandonment  of  the  principles  for  which  America 
once  stood,  and  has  been  weakened  by  the  popular 

33 


feeling  among  the  peoples  of  Europe,  whose  hearts ' 
are  lifted  up  by  the  impulses  of  patriotism  and  sac- 
rifice, that  America  has  become  weak  and  sordid. 

Such  policies  as  I  have  described  are  doubly- 
dangerous  in  their  effect  upon  foreign  nations  and 
in  their  effect  at  home.  It  is  a  matter  of  universal 
experience  that  a  weak  and  apprehensive  treat- 
ment of  foreign  affairs  invites  encroachments  upon 
rights  and  leads  to  situations  in  which  it  is  difficult 
to  prevent  war,  while  a  firm  and  frank  policy  atl 
the  outset  prevents  difficult  situations  from  arising 
and  tends  most  strongly  to  preserve  peace.  On 
the  other  hand,  if  a  government  is  to  be  strong 
in  its  diplomacy,  its  own  people  must  be  ranged 
in  its  support  by  leadership  of  opinion  in  a  national 
cause  worthy  to  awaken  their  patriotism  and 
devotion. 

We  have  not  been  following  the  path  of  peace. 
We  have  been  blindly  stumbling  along  the  road 
that  continued  will  lead  to  inevitable  war.  Our 
diplomacy  has  dealt  with  symptoms  and  ignored 
causes.  The  great  decisive  question  upon  which 
our  peace  depends,  is  the  question  whether  the 
rule  of  action  applied  to  Belgium  is  to  be  tolerated. 
If  it  is  tolerated  by  the  civilized  world,  this  nation 
will  have  to  fight  for  its  life.  There  will  be  no 
escape.  That  is  the  critical  point  of  defense 
for  the  peace  of  America. 

34 


When  our  government  failed  to  tell  the  truth 
about  Belgium,  it  lost  the  opportimity  for  leader- 
ship of  the  moral  sense  of  the  American  people, 
and  it  lost  the  power  which  a  knowledge  of  that 
leadership  and  a  sympathetic  response  from  the 
moral  sense  of  the  world  would  have  given  to  our 
diplomacy.  When  our  government  failed  to  make 
any  provision  whatever  for  defending  its  rights 
in  case  they  should  be  trampled  upon,  it  lost  the 
power  which  a  belief  in  its  readiness  and  will  to 
maintain  its  rights  would  have  given  to  its  dip- 
lomatic representations.  When  our  government 
gave  notice  to  Germany  that  it  would  destroy 
American  lives  and  American  ships  at  its  peril, 
our  words,  which  would  have  been  potent  if 
sustained  by  adequate  preparation  to  make  them 
good,  and  by  the  prestige  and  authority  of  the 
moral  leadership  of  a  great  people  in  a  great  cause, 
were  treated  with  a  contempt  which  should  have 
been  foreseen;  and  when  our  government  failed 
to  make  those  words  good,  its  diplomacy  was 
bankrupts   . 


35 


,     "*    > 


UNIVERSITY  or  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 

Return  to  desk  from  which  borrowed 
This  book  is  DUE  or»  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


MAR  23  194f 


APR  15 '68 -11  ftM 

LOAN  OfEr'A. 


MAR  2  9  2001 


MAR  2  9   2006 


LD21 


_l00m-9,'47(A5702sl6)476 


33  ISO'S 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CAUFORNIA  LIBRARY 


